A network of 91 think tanks and industry groups are primarily responsible.

Share this story

An extensive study into the financial networks that support groups denying the science behind climate change and opposing political action has found a vast, secretive web of think tanks and industry associations, bankrolled by conservative billionaires.

"I call it the climate-change counter movement," study author Robert Brulle, who published his results in the journal Climatic Change, told the Guardian. "It is not just a couple of rogue individuals doing this. This is a large-scale political effort."

His work, which is focused on the United States, shows how a network of 91 think tanks and industry groups are primarily responsible for conservative opposition to climate policy. Almost 80 percent of these groups are registered as charitable organizations for tax purposes and collectively received more than seven billion dollars between 2003 and 2010.

However, Brulle admitted that tracing the funding back to its original sources was difficult, as around three-quarters of the money has been routed through trusts that assure anonymity to their donors.

While it was not always possible to separate funds designated strictly for climate-change work from overall budgets, Brulle said: "This is how wealthy individuals or corporations translate their economic power into political and cultural power."

He added: "They have their profits and they hire people to write books that say climate change is not real. They hire people to go on TV and say climate change is not real. It ends up that people without economic power don't have the same size voice as the people who have economic power, and so it ends up distorting democracy."

"They have their profits and they hire people to write books that say climate change is not real."

Ok, in the interest of fairness, can we see those that are profiting off of the doom and gloom extreme climate change proponents as well and who they hire? I'm not trying to argue that climate change isn't happening, but to just say that people are trying to profit by pushing against the climate change rhetoric is a little hypocritical. Oh, who am I kidding? We'll just sensationalize everything and make those who don't agree look bad.

Woah, are you telling me that fossil fuel billionaires are opposed to climate change legislation? I think I need to sit down.

It's very nice that the Guardian is doing the legwork here, but I don't think this is going to be a revelation to many people. That's how politics works these days, and for a long time. I suspect if you were able to inject your congressman with truth serum and ask them point blank, they wouldn't be nearly as skeptical about climate change either, but they have their "anonymous" benefactors to think about around reelection time and can't say so publicly.

So, you're saying it costs money to debunk the liberal propaganda that is global warming? Shocking. I wonder if the liberal, godless, scientists have any funding. Oh wait. . . they basically print money through the global warming 'cause'. I'm tiring of Ars bent on this. It's clear you're sadly biased - try posting other studies from time to , or is this Reddit's pawn (Reddit - see fascist propaganda).

I love it when Ars posts an article like this. The blind fundies come out of the woodwork to scream anecdotes and even less-convincing counter-arguments. Confront them with facts, and it's just more liberal fascism-a jingoistic association that is shockingly ill-conceived.

So, you're saying it costs money to debunk the liberal propaganda that is global warming? Shocking. I wonder if the liberal, godless, scientists have any funding. Oh wait. . . they basically print money through the global warming 'cause'. I'm tiring of Ars bent on this. It's clear you're sadly biased - try posting other studies from time to , or is this Reddit's pawn (Reddit - see fascist propaganda).

"They have their profits and they hire people to write books that say climate change is not real."

Ok, in the interest of fairness, can we see those that are profiting off of the doom and gloom extreme climate change proponents as well and who they hire? I'm not trying to argue that climate change isn't happening, but to just say that people are trying to profit by pushing against the climate change rhetoric is a little hypocritical. Oh, who am I kidding? We'll just sensationalize everything and make those who don't agree look bad.

Sure. I think it is fair. However, what party / parties would benefit from climate change being real ? This is an honest question. The only industry comes to mind is the renewable energy sector which last I checked in nowhere near as successful or lucrative as their Fossil fuel counter parts. I am all for a healthy debate but when 90% + of scientific community is on one side and the other 10% seem to be bought by the "Fossil conglomerate" I am not sure what kind of constructive debate we can have.

So, you're saying it costs money to debunk the liberal propaganda that is global warming? Shocking. I wonder if the liberal, godless, scientists have any funding. Oh wait. . . they basically print money through the global warming 'cause'. I'm tiring of Ars bent on this. It's clear you're sadly biased - try posting other studies from time to , or is this Reddit's pawn (Reddit - see fascist propaganda).

: /

How about you do us a favor and re-read your post ?! While you are at it how about post these "Other Studies" as well.

Well, what do you know! There really is money to be made with climate science! Guess most accusers are just looking at the wrong end.

Being less sarcastic, I doubt the deniers are getting rich from this either. Of course, I would imagine that's because the economic interest behind discrediting global warming would be about preserving wealth, not building it.

You know, as someone who's now more of a liberal who used to spend a lot of time reading conservative opinion and thought, this looks like a categorization of a large group of organizations of similar views.

I mean, of course a lot of conservative think tanks have the same donors, both individuals and trust funds. Of course some of those donors are wealthy oil magnates, and of course some of that pushes an anti-climate change agenda. (But that's what a lot of these groups and think tanks believe. I think they're wrong in most ways on the topic [though their thoughts on cost effectiveness could use a better airing])

But to say it's a conspiracy? It looks to me like a bunch of associated groups agreeing with one another and cross-pollinating. Yes, they're wrong, but wrong != evil. Come on.

I suspect a similar study of the various liberal and environmentalist groups would find all kinds of links - Trust funds and donors with the habit of giving to many of the same ones, people who have migrated between them and are on the boards of various of them at once, that sort of thing. That's how political movements work!

The difference between a political movement and a conspiracy should be more than whether or not you agree with them.

"They have their profits and they hire people to write books that say climate change is not real."

Ok, in the interest of fairness, can we see those that are profiting off of the doom and gloom extreme climate change proponents as well and who they hire? I'm not trying to argue that climate change isn't happening, but to just say that people are trying to profit by pushing against the climate change rhetoric is a little hypocritical. Oh, who am I kidding? We'll just sensationalize everything and make those who don't agree look bad.

Sure. I think it is fair. However, what party / parties would benefit from climate change being real ? This is an honest question. The only industry comes to mind is the renewable energy sector which last I checked in nowhere near as successful or lucrative as their Fossil fuel counter parts. I am all for a healthy debate but when 90% + of scientific community is on one side and the other 10% seem to be bought by the "Fossil conglomerate" I am not sure what kind of constructive debate we can have.

How parties/companies benefit from denying climate change, is that they get to save money that may instead have been spent on upgrading facilities to comply with new tighter environmental laws. Upgrading that coal fired power plant to remove sulfates, radioactive ash and other pollutants is extremely expensive.

You know, as someone who's now more of a liberal who used to spend a lot of time reading conservative opinion and thought, this looks like a categorization of a large group of organizations of similar views.

I mean, of course a lot of conservative think tanks have the same donors, both individuals and trust funds. Of course some of those donors are wealthy oil magnates, and of course some of that pushes an anti-climate change agenda. (But that's what a lot of these groups and think tanks believe. I think they're wrong in most ways on the topic [though their thoughts on cost effectiveness could use a better airing])

But to say it's a conspiracy? It looks to me like a bunch of associated groups agreeing with one another and cross-pollinating. Yes, they're wrong, but wrong != evil. Come on.

I suspect a similar study of the various liberal and environmentalist groups would find all kinds of links - Trust funds and donors with the habit of giving to many of the same ones, people who have migrated between them and are on the boards of various of them at once, that sort of thing. That's how political movements work!

The difference between a political movement and a conspiracy should be more than whether or not you agree with them.

"I suspect a similar study of the various liberal and environmentalist groups would find all kinds of links "

A billion dollar worth ?! Thats a hell lot of cash for think tanks I am assuming are specific to Climate study don't you think ?

You know, as someone who's now more of a liberal who used to spend a lot of time reading conservative opinion and thought, this looks like a categorization of a large group of organizations of similar views.

I mean, of course a lot of conservative think tanks have the same donors, both individuals and trust funds. Of course some of those donors are wealthy oil magnates, and of course some of that pushes an anti-climate change agenda. (But that's what a lot of these groups and think tanks believe. I think they're wrong in most ways on the topic [though their thoughts on cost effectiveness could use a better airing])

But to say it's a conspiracy? It looks to me like a bunch of associated groups agreeing with one another and cross-pollinating. Yes, they're wrong, but wrong != evil. Come on.

I suspect a similar study of the various liberal and environmentalist groups would find all kinds of links - Trust funds and donors with the habit of giving to many of the same ones, people who have migrated between them and are on the boards of various of them at once, that sort of thing. That's how political movements work!

The difference between a political movement and a conspiracy should be more than whether or not you agree with them.

"I suspect a similar study of the various liberal and environmentalist groups would find all kinds of links "

A billion dollar worth ?! Thats a hell lot of cash for think tanks I am assuming are specific to Climate study don't you think ?

You know, as someone who's now more of a liberal who used to spend a lot of time reading conservative opinion and thought, this looks like a categorization of a large group of organizations of similar views.

I mean, of course a lot of conservative think tanks have the same donors, both individuals and trust funds. Of course some of those donors are wealthy oil magnates, and of course some of that pushes an anti-climate change agenda. (But that's what a lot of these groups and think tanks believe. I think they're wrong in most ways on the topic [though their thoughts on cost effectiveness could use a better airing])

But to say it's a conspiracy? It looks to me like a bunch of associated groups agreeing with one another and cross-pollinating. Yes, they're wrong, but wrong != evil. Come on.

I suspect a similar study of the various liberal and environmentalist groups would find all kinds of links - Trust funds and donors with the habit of giving to many of the same ones, people who have migrated between them and are on the boards of various of them at once, that sort of thing. That's how political movements work!

The difference between a political movement and a conspiracy should be more than whether or not you agree with them.

"I suspect a similar study of the various liberal and environmentalist groups would find all kinds of links "

A billion dollar worth ?! Thats a hell lot of cash for think tanks I am assuming are specific to Climate study don't you think ?

As the article stated, they are not all specific to climate study. In fact at least a few are neutral on the subject. Also, the study author points out that separating how much of the money goes to climate debate is hard.

This begs the question, when did research being hard make it acceptable to make conclusion that are unsupported and almost certainly false?

I mean, look at any lobbying effort and you see the same thing: people give money to causes they support, and people with a lot of money give a lot of money. They're not likely to give money to a single organization, either.

You know, as someone who's now more of a liberal who used to spend a lot of time reading conservative opinion and thought, this looks like a categorization of a large group of organizations of similar views.

I mean, of course a lot of conservative think tanks have the same donors, both individuals and trust funds. Of course some of those donors are wealthy oil magnates, and of course some of that pushes an anti-climate change agenda. (But that's what a lot of these groups and think tanks believe. I think they're wrong in most ways on the topic [though their thoughts on cost effectiveness could use a better airing])

But to say it's a conspiracy? It looks to me like a bunch of associated groups agreeing with one another and cross-pollinating. Yes, they're wrong, but wrong != evil. Come on.

I suspect a similar study of the various liberal and environmentalist groups would find all kinds of links - Trust funds and donors with the habit of giving to many of the same ones, people who have migrated between them and are on the boards of various of them at once, that sort of thing. That's how political movements work!

The difference between a political movement and a conspiracy should be more than whether or not you agree with them.

Its nice that you want prop up a stick man and knock him down. But back in reality land, no one in either article called this a conspiracy. Instead they use the same language stating this is the political power wealthy interest.

You know, as someone who's now more of a liberal who used to spend a lot of time reading conservative opinion and thought, this looks like a categorization of a large group of organizations of similar views.

I mean, of course a lot of conservative think tanks have the same donors, both individuals and trust funds. Of course some of those donors are wealthy oil magnates, and of course some of that pushes an anti-climate change agenda. (But that's what a lot of these groups and think tanks believe. I think they're wrong in most ways on the topic [though their thoughts on cost effectiveness could use a better airing])

But to say it's a conspiracy? It looks to me like a bunch of associated groups agreeing with one another and cross-pollinating. Yes, they're wrong, but wrong != evil. Come on.

I suspect a similar study of the various liberal and environmentalist groups would find all kinds of links - Trust funds and donors with the habit of giving to many of the same ones, people who have migrated between them and are on the boards of various of them at once, that sort of thing. That's how political movements work!

The difference between a political movement and a conspiracy should be more than whether or not you agree with them.

How parties/companies benefit from denying climate change, is that they get to save money that may instead have been spent on upgrading facilities to comply with new tighter environmental laws. Upgrading that coal fired power plant to remove sulfates, radioactive ash and other pollutants is extremely expensive.

None of which has anything to do with "climate change". There are plenty of other reasons to phase out coal-fired power plants. Thousands of people dying every year is at the top of the list.

"They have their profits and they hire people to write books that say climate change is not real."

Ok, in the interest of fairness, can we see those that are profiting off of the doom and gloom extreme climate change proponents as well and who they hire? I'm not trying to argue that climate change isn't happening, but to just say that people are trying to profit by pushing against the climate change rhetoric is a little hypocritical. Oh, who am I kidding? We'll just sensationalize everything and make those who don't agree look bad.

Sure. I think it is fair. However, what party / parties would benefit from climate change being real ?

That's an incorrect question. The apposite one would be "what party / parties would benefit from climate change being believed to be real?"

To which a ready array of answers present themselves. Not least of which being recipients of a huge number of grants to investigate the effects of climate change.

Also, this article needs greater clarification. Is this criticism of "Climate Change" which is obviously rubbish because the climate is always changing and only an idiot would deny that, or criticism of AGW - i.e. that human activity is the primary driver of climate change and that global temperatures will continue to rise to catastrophic degree. The latter is a Hellishly more complicated area and it does a massive disservice to everyone to talk about "Climate Change denial" rather than people being sceptical about AGW.

This is an honest question. The only industry comes to mind is the renewable energy sector which last I checked in nowhere near as successful or lucrative as their Fossil fuel counter parts.

Again, an incorrect question. Something does not need to be more profitable than something else to be worth doing. It only needs to be profitable in itself. The renewable energy industry is huge. And in large part it has taken away not from fossil fuels (which it struggles to compete with enormously), but from Nuclear Power which is better for the environment all round.

I am all for a healthy debate but when 90% + of scientific community is on one side and the other 10% seem to be bought by the "Fossil conglomerate" I am not sure what kind of constructive debate we can have.

Questioning the sources of money is always a good idea. But be aware that the figures here are much smaller than the lobbying budgets of those trying to convince people of AGW. Much smaller. Look at the finances of FoE for example. I could dig out piles of misinformation from them over the years if I took the time. The amount of money sucked in by Academia for "climate change" research is also colossal and I'd be stunned if the figures in the article above came anywhere close to that.

How parties/companies benefit from denying climate change, is that they get to save money that may instead have been spent on upgrading facilities to comply with new tighter environmental laws. Upgrading that coal fired power plant to remove sulfates, radioactive ash and other pollutants is extremely expensive.

None of which has anything to do with "climate change". There are plenty of other reasons to phase out coal-fired power plants. Thousands of people dying every year is at the top of the list.

Amen to that! We need to get off fossil fuels asap. They are bad for the environment, bad for our health, finite and distort our politics to the point where the West not only tolerates but props up nasty Middle Eastern regimes who commit the most appalling crimes daily. No-one needs to believe in AGW to believe that we should be getting away from fossil fuels right now.

Here's one issue with naysayers; some of us are old enough to know better.

My family has always been really big on history, both ours and the world in general. My own sister has spent 3 decades mapping our family tree, gathering every scrap of data she could. Most is digital...some materials were extremely fragile.

Ala "Methuselah's Children", it seems several branches tend to living long lives. Sis went to see relatives in their 90's and got oral history.

Now you're saying "WTF does this have to do with the topic?"

We have over 400 years of data from Europe and the US, including pictures, paintings, drawings, family records, public records, newspaper clippings, etc.

My brother-in-law (sister's husband) is a weather scientist with 40 years experience.

While not a scientific study, bought or not, it's apparent that there IS change, especially since about 1850.

I'm 60, my own recollection is consistent with the observation/opinion that there seems to be more energy available to weather systems. From warmer air and oceans? Seems likely.

You know, as someone who's now more of a liberal who used to spend a lot of time reading conservative opinion and thought, this looks like a categorization of a large group of organizations of similar views.

I mean, of course a lot of conservative think tanks have the same donors, both individuals and trust funds. Of course some of those donors are wealthy oil magnates, and of course some of that pushes an anti-climate change agenda. (But that's what a lot of these groups and think tanks believe. I think they're wrong in most ways on the topic [though their thoughts on cost effectiveness could use a better airing])

But to say it's a conspiracy? It looks to me like a bunch of associated groups agreeing with one another and cross-pollinating. Yes, they're wrong, but wrong != evil. Come on.

I suspect a similar study of the various liberal and environmentalist groups would find all kinds of links - Trust funds and donors with the habit of giving to many of the same ones, people who have migrated between them and are on the boards of various of them at once, that sort of thing. That's how political movements work!

The difference between a political movement and a conspiracy should be more than whether or not you agree with them.

"I suspect a similar study of the various liberal and environmentalist groups would find all kinds of links "

A billion dollar worth ?! Thats a hell lot of cash for think tanks I am assuming are specific to Climate study don't you think ?

qasimq - That's the problem. The article makes it sound like they are, but at least the ones called out above definitely aren't.

The American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation couldn't be further from 'climate study specific'. They comment on everything, and have for a number of years.

Go check out their sites - Climate change merits mention (somewhere, a quick check of the front page didn't find anything), but it's certainly not the main focus.

They produce a lot of reports and data with a conservative bent. Lots of budget studies and new tax proposals, that sort of thing. They are in no way climate change exclusive, and predate it being a focus of national debate. I can't count how many articles from their scholars and the like I used to read in the conservative web media (The more serious stuff - Like, National Review, not Fox. (*shudder*)).

I'm ready to believe there's some shady stuff going on with the climate change denialism (Hi, Koch brothers!), but this article doesn't seem to be describing it. (I wouldn't be surprised if that's because the really creepy stuff is better hidden.)

You know, as someone who's now more of a liberal who used to spend a lot of time reading conservative opinion and thought, this looks like a categorization of a large group of organizations of similar views.

I mean, of course a lot of conservative think tanks have the same donors, both individuals and trust funds. Of course some of those donors are wealthy oil magnates, and of course some of that pushes an anti-climate change agenda. (But that's what a lot of these groups and think tanks believe. I think they're wrong in most ways on the topic [though their thoughts on cost effectiveness could use a better airing])

But to say it's a conspiracy? It looks to me like a bunch of associated groups agreeing with one another and cross-pollinating. Yes, they're wrong, but wrong != evil. Come on.

I suspect a similar study of the various liberal and environmentalist groups would find all kinds of links - Trust funds and donors with the habit of giving to many of the same ones, people who have migrated between them and are on the boards of various of them at once, that sort of thing. That's how political movements work!

The difference between a political movement and a conspiracy should be more than whether or not you agree with them.

"I suspect a similar study of the various liberal and environmentalist groups would find all kinds of links "

A billion dollar worth ?! Thats a hell lot of cash for think tanks I am assuming are specific to Climate study don't you think ?

As the article stated, they are not all specific to climate study. In fact at least a few are neutral on the subject. Also, the study author points out that separating how much of the money goes to climate debate is hard.

This begs the question, when did research being hard make it acceptable to make conclusion that are unsupported and almost certainly false?

Probably sometime when Sumeria was first active, maybe earlier. Everyone does it, we just like to think we're immune.

There was an article on Ars about it years ago. The human brain (paraphrased from a non-neurospecialist perspective) literally doesn't like to think against things it knows, and shuts down and throws a fit when faced with counter-evidence. Sports fans, religious people, macophiles, a few other similarly polarized groups all react that same.

"They have their profits and they hire people to write books that say climate change is not real."

Ok, in the interest of fairness, can we see those that are profiting off of the doom and gloom extreme climate change proponents as well and who they hire? I'm not trying to argue that climate change isn't happening, but to just say that people are trying to profit by pushing against the climate change rhetoric is a little hypocritical. Oh, who am I kidding? We'll just sensationalize everything and make those who don't agree look bad.

There is no money in it for those that oppose the super rich and big entrenched business.

Period.

You only make yourself look like an idiot and only convince morons when you make such assertions.